Tag Archives: Bashar al-Assad

Britain, European Union, Government, Middle East, Politics, Syria, United Nations, United States

Syria, chemical weapons and direct intervention…

SYRIA

Television and media images from Syria have been truly horrendous. Pictures have been depicted showing dozens of bodies laid out in rows, many of them children. Others, including very young infants, are seen suffering convulsions and spasms – symptoms that are typical of a major gas attack.

Ghastly as the images are, however, is all as clear cut as it seems? Photographs and video productions have been circulated by Syrian opposition activists; their release, as a UN team arrived to investigate the reported use of chemical weapons, maybe perceived as being opportunistic with powerful propaganda value.

The conundrum here is whether any leader, even one as beleaguered and brutal in defence of his presidency as Bashar al-Assad, be so heedless and perverse of the consequences as to launch such an attack just as the UN inspectors were arriving. Assad has denied he did it, but many say he would have if he had done it.

The alternative is even less plausible – that the Syrian rebels staged, exaggerated or even manipulated an attack on areas they hold with the intention of persuading both the UN inspectors and international opinion towards a Western intervention.

Whichever it is, we should constantly bear in mind the barbaric and brutal lengths to which a desperate regime will go to keep power.

Whilst the response from most international leaders has been one of outrage, comments have been tempered, rightly, with a measure of caution. ‘If proven’ is the crucial phrase that has emanated from Britain, France, and from others who are calling for more direct action. Legally, it is also a pointer as to what the priority should now be: to establish, so far as is possible, the truth of what happened. To fulfil that end, the UN inspectors must be granted immediate and unfettered access to the area of the alleged atrocity.

Establishing the truth is vital because the stakes are so high. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict was defined by President Obama as a ‘red line’ when he said almost a year ago that if the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons, ‘the whole calculus would change’. This was widely interpreted as a condition for the U.S. to intervene, either directly or by arming the rebels.

Yet, nor can it be excluded that the rebels have attempted to orchestrate something in which they might force America’s hand. So far, an EU investigation has only reported small scale use of sarin nerve gas on both sides. But if such an extensive attack, as seems to have taken place this week, is found to be the work of Syrian government forces, that could not but ‘change the calculus’.

Crucially, though, would it (or should it) prompt Western intervention? Intervention can take various forms, from air strikes targeting Syrian weapons, cruise missile launches from the naval fleet operating in the region, or a full ground incursion with boots on the ground. But as we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, even limited intervention tends to produce perverse and unwieldy results. In Syria it could be even more riskier, given the regional complexity and its ever more volatile neighbourhood.

At the present moment, doing nothing seems less perilous than direct intervention. Being sucked into a bloody civil war that is increasingly sectarian with regional alliances taking hold – Iran and Hezbollah siding with the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia arming the rebels – direct intervention would certainly appear the worse of two evils. But even now the case has still not been made for direct intervention in Syria.

Standard
Britain, Government, National Security, Politics, Syria

Engage in Syria at your own peril…

SYRIA: A RISKY VENTURE

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has hinted that hundreds of British soldiers could be sent to Syria to prevent a chemical threat to the West.

Mr Hammond has refused to rule out ordering troops to the war zone to rein in President Bashar al-Assad’s regime or seize stockpiles of illegal weapons.

He said it was ‘unlikely’ but no option was ‘off the table’ – in the most serious warning yet that the UK could deploy forces to Syria.

Mr Hammond gave his remarks after the outgoing head of the Armed Forces, General Sir David Richards, said Britain risked being dragged into the war.

Sir David, who has stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff, said ministers ‘would have to act’ if hoards of chemical weapons were discovered.

The UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by President Assad to crush a pro-freedom uprising in his country, he said.

At a ceremony at Horse Guards Parade in London to mark the end of General Richards’ tenure, the Defence Secretary said:

… I think it’s very unlikely we would see boots on the ground but we must never take any options off the table.

… It’s not our job to decide how and when and if to deploy forces but to make sure the Prime Minister and the National Security Council have the maximum range of options open to them.

General Richards revealed planning for a major operation led by Special Forces was under way. He said:

… The risk of terrorism is becoming more dominant in our vision for what we do in Syria.

… If that risk develops, we would almost certainly have to act … and we are ready to do so. Some could characterise that as war.

OPINION

The Prime Minister should consider very carefully the words of the outgoing Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, before promising to give military assistance to rebel forces in Syria.

On leaving his post, Sir David has warned that plans under consideration to arm the rebels and set up a no-fly zone (NFZ) would be the start of a deeper and more dangerous British involvement. Stemming from that would invariably be aerial attacks on ground targets, followed by advisers to train the rebels, and, potentially, British combat troops on the ground.

Do we really know who these rebels are? Can we be confident that if they overthrow Assad, who has an advanced Air Force, they would govern any better? If Britain was to arm the rebels, could those weapons be used against British or other Western targets?

Syria has evolved into a pernicious bloody civil war with complex sectarian dimensions the West barely understands.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Military, National Security, Syria, United States

Arming the Syrian rebels is looking less likely…

SYRIAN REBELS

Downing Street has ditched plans to arm the Syrian rebels after the Prime Minister has been warned that there is little point sending weapons unless he is prepared for all-out war with the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

General Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, along with other commanders believe that sending small arms or ground-to-air missiles will hardly be worth it, since it would it would make little difference to the outcome of the conflict. Military chiefs have also said that even options like a no-fly zone (NFZ) would require air attacks on Syrian defences that would last weeks or even months.

The assassination last week of Kamal Hamami, a top commander of the Syrian Free Army, by a hardline group linked to Al-Qaeda, has compounded anxieties over plans by Britain and other Western countries to give military help to rebels fighting the Assad regime. Those fears are aggravated by the possibility that weapons and expertise provided to the rebels could be turned against the UK and her allies by radical Islamists. There are also growing rivalries between the Syrian Free Army and Islamists, who have sometimes joined forces on the battlefield.

But senior ministers and Whitehall officials have revealed that the Coalition is drawing up plans to help train and advise ‘moderate’ elements of the opposition forces who continue to battle with Assad’s forces.

The British Prime Minister has been keen to act on Syria and demanded last month an end to the EU arms embargo on the country to give him options. The EU reluctantly relented, but sending weapons to the beleaguered rebels in Syria remains an option open to the prime minister if parliament was to approve, though that does seem a remote possibility at the present moment given the lack of support among Tory whips.

Following a meeting of the National Security Council, in which British military commanders were asked to present options on the conflict, the Government was told that although it might make them feel better (by sending weapons) it was hardly worth it in terms of altering the balance of forces on the ground. Whilst Syria is known to have good air defences, military chiefs have also said that engaging Syria militarily would mean weeks of bombing and air strikes. A decision to engage is one that couldn’t be undertaken half-heartedly.

But given the lack of organisation within the rebel movement, training and advising the rebels remain district possibilities for Britain. The UK is concentrating on areas where it feels it has the expertise to contribute. The supply of weapons into Syria is continuing to be made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

It is understood that military advisers could be stationed in Jordon to advise Syria rebel leaders on strategy and tactics. UK chiefs are wary of being accused of having British boots on the ground in Syria or by making any ground incursion into the country.

Ministers believe it could take 18 months of further conflict before Assad is forced to the negotiating table. The civil war has already claimed more than 100,000 lives with millions more displaced on the borders with neighbouring countries.

There is also frustration about the approach taken by US Secretary of State John Kerry in pushing regime figures to the negotiating table. There is little idea of the solution Mr Kerry is seeking. Knowing where you are trying to get to in order to get there should surely be central in any negotiations over Syria, but this underpinning remains distinctly absent even after almost three years of intense fighting.

Standard